| Reply from Norman Baker MP to Lewes Matters July 2006 |
|
Mr Anthony Dicks Lewes Matters Thank you very much for your email following my piece in the Lewes Handbook. I do not think we are very far apart, but as you have been kind enough to pick up on a few points from my piece, perhaps I could respond to these. Firstly, I agree with you that it would be unfortunate if a planning application were submitted so that the consultation period was in August. Part of the problem the District Council faces is that if it fails to determine an application within eight weeks, the developer has an automatic right to appeal to the Secretary of State and the decision is then taken away from the local council entirely. They are therefore pushed by government diktat to determine applications far more quickly than is really sensible. In most cases, with complicated applications, the applicant is content to let the planning authority take more than eight weeks but this cannot be replied upon. I would certainly be happy to speak to the applicant to try to ensure that they are prepared to give proper time for consultation, as the views of Lewes people are very important in this application, in my view. In respect of the industrial area, the point I was trying to make is that this area is in slow decline and it is unlikely that there will be major investment in the area unless flood defences are provided. I am aware of some of the conditions put on insurance policies for businesses in the area, and they are very onerous and effectively leave many businesses without adequate cover. There may therefore be a short term benefit for some businesses in that situation, in terms of rent levels, but it is an unsustainable position in the longer term. On the subject of flood defences, again I do not think we are in disagreement. It is certainly true that the Environment Agency would strongly press for flood defences as a condition of any development and that the District Council would effectively be obliged to incorporate that into any planning permission. The point I was making, however, is that the provision of such defences, which are significant in cost, can only really be achieved through a larger development rather a piecemeal development, for it is only the development of a larger size that has sufficient critical mass to enable such an expenditure to be justified. I have described it as community gain, in the sense that it is not merely the businesses themselves which will benefit, but all of us if our town is better protected from flooding. The same response, of sorts, I think I can give to the point about planning gain in respect of community benefits. There is now a formula in place which allows a planning authority to identify how much of a development can be released for community purposes. It is certainly true that a smaller development could release monies for, say, a children’s play area or something of that nature, but self evidently, it would take a bigger development before the percentage formula applied released sufficient money to provide something of the order of a cinema. That is not to say that argument in itself justifies a large development, but it is one factor which needs to be taken into account, in my view. Lastly, I agree with you that the Council’s planning guidance does allow affordable housing to be provided with smaller developments than was previously the case, so I take your argument on that one. I hope this is helpful in responding to your email and thank you again for contacting me. Yours sincerely Norman Baker MP |